If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

What is happening in the republic of Georgia is all too reminiscent of what happened back in 1956, when Russian tanks rolled into Hungary — and the West did nothing.

An argument might well be made that, realistically, there was nothing the West could have done — then or now — that would have forced the Russians out.

But there was bitterness, then as now, that the West may have encouraged people to risk their lives, relying on us, when we knew from the outset that we were not about to risk armed conflict with a nuclear superpower over Hungary then or Georgia now.

The West has a long history of doing nothing, utilizing the United Nations — and before that, the League of Nations — to create the illusion that they are doing something, when they make speeches and pass resolutions.

Neither speeches nor resolutions are going to make any difference to the Russians, to the Iranians, or to any other belligerent nation. We know it, they know it and the world knows it.

Apparently Barack Obama doesn’t yet know it, judging by his initial response to news of the Russian invasion of Georgia, which was to call on “both sides” to cease fire and then go to the U.N.

Later he changed his position to correspond to John McCain’s more grown-up position that Russians have to pay a price if we expect them to change their behavior.

The real question is whether we can force the Russians to pay a serious price without ourselves paying a more serious price than we are prepared to pay. The Russians have already pointed out that the United States needs their cooperation on international problems.

These problems include the war on terrorism and perhaps the biggest problem of them all, Iran’s movement toward building nuclear weapons that can be used either directly by Iran or — more likely — by turning some of these nuclear bombs over to terrorists whom Iran has been supplying with other weapons.

There are two problems: What are we going to do? And what are we going to say?

There are lots of things we can do, if we don’t care about the repercussions — but of course we do care. The only thing we have complete control over is what we say.

We have been saying far too much already, especially in proportion to what we were prepared to do. This is a problem that began long before this administration. Sometimes it has seemed as if our foreign policy is to speak loudly and carry a little stick.

American presidents, through several administrations, have been publicly commenting moralistically on the internal affairs of other countries around the world.

We have been criticizing friend and foe alike. Sometimes we have sounded like the world’s nanny.

This has been more than a bad habit. Nagging our friends and irritating our enemies has produced remarkably few benefits to anyone and much ill-will among countries whose cooperation we either have needed or will need.

Our butting into things that are none of our business has taken the form of actions as well as words. Extending NATO right up to the borders of Russia has been one of those feel-good actions, much like our feel-good moralizing to other countries.

Are we really prepared to go to war with Russia if they send troops into Latvia, a NATO member next door to them and thousands of miles away from us?

Some people seem to think that, if we had already included Georgia in NATO, Russia would not have attacked. But what if they attacked anyway? Would we have done any more than we are doing now?

Would that have protected Georgia or would our inaction have just brought the reliability of our protection of other NATO countries into question?

If anything, we ought to be thinking about pulling out of NATO ourselves. European countries already have the wealth to produce their own military defense. If they do not have the will, that is their problem. What American officials can do is keep their mouths shut if they don’t intend to back up their words.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

Europe has always used us has a crutch when it comes to defense matters. NATO started out well meaning. The alliance along war torn Europe to rebuild their shattered countries and economies after World War II. What happened then is their dependence on the US to defend them at no cost to the European countries. Look at the defense budgets of the European countries............they maintain minimum commitments while using their domestic taxes for their own economic growth.

Europe has always used us has a crutch when it comes to defense matters. NATO started out well meaning. The alliance along war torn Europe to rebuild their shattered countries and economies after World War II. What happened then is their dependence on the US to defend them at no cost to the European countries. Look at the defense budgets of the European countries............they maintain minimum commitments while using their domestic taxes for their own economic growth.

Washington said it best .......avoid foreign entanglements.

Your absolutely right. Dependance has breed complacency and laziness for Europe's security.
You don't find too many people today that still think that's smart foreign policy. If you even suggest such a thing you're labeled "isolationist".
Those dead white guys had experiences that far exceed our stupid politicians and experts today. We've done it their way for so long and only had failure after failure.....that maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to listen to Washington for a while.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown

So what do you suggest we do if Russia takes over Eastern Europe again? Let them do it?

What about when Russia takes over Western Europe? Sit back and twiddle our thumbs?

Can we finally do something if they annex Canada, or should we wait until their boots are on the ground in American territory?

Those are alot of IF's.

What if Europe were capable of their own security? Why is that so hard?

What you're suggesting is that anything different than confronting Russia militarilyt is appeasement? I guess that makes Sowell an appeaser,.. but also Reagan, and all prior president's that didn't go to war over the Soviet Union. Man..your memory is short.

Last edited by Molon Labe; 08-20-2008 at 05:47 PM.

Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown